Teja Voruganti1, Rahim Moineddin1, Nathaniel Jembere1, Laurie Elit1, Eva Grunfeld1, Aisha K Lofters1. 1. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Voruganti, Moineddin, Grunfeld); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Moineddin, Grunfeld, Lofters), University of Toronto; Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Moineddin, Jembere, Lofters), Toronto, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Elit), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (Grunfeld), Toronto, Ont.; Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Lofters), St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women and 7th most common cancer overall. Cervical cancer is highly preventable with screening. Previous work has shown that immigrants are less likely to undergo screening than nonimmigrants in Ontario, Canada. We examined whether immigrant women are more likely to present with later stage cervical cancer than long-term residents of the province. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of women with cervical cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 using provincial administrative health data. We compared the odds of late-stage diagnosis between immigrants and long-term residents, adjusting for socioeconomic measures, comorbidities and health care use. The outcome of interest was stage of cervical cancer diagnosis, defined as early (stage I) or late (stages II-IV). We confirmed results with a cohort of women with cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2012. RESULTS: Complete staging data were available for 218 immigrants and 1348 matched long-term residents. We found no association between immigrant status and stage at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.39). Factors that did show significant association with late-stage diagnosis were physician characteristics, whether a woman had previously undergone screening and had visited a gynecologist in the past 3 years. These results were echoed in the 2007-2012 cohort (immigrants v. long-term residents, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71-1.20). INTERPRETATION: Our results show that being an immigrant is not associated with late-stage diagnosis of cervical cancer in Ontario. Programs broadly aimed at immigrants may require a targeted approach to address higher-risk subgroups.
BACKGROUND: Globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women and 7th most common cancer overall. Cervical cancer is highly preventable with screening. Previous work has shown that immigrants are less likely to undergo screening than nonimmigrants in Ontario, Canada. We examined whether immigrant women are more likely to present with later stage cervical cancer than long-term residents of the province. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of women with cervical cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 using provincial administrative health data. We compared the odds of late-stage diagnosis between immigrants and long-term residents, adjusting for socioeconomic measures, comorbidities and health care use. The outcome of interest was stage of cervical cancer diagnosis, defined as early (stage I) or late (stages II-IV). We confirmed results with a cohort of women with cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2012. RESULTS: Complete staging data were available for 218 immigrants and 1348 matched long-term residents. We found no association between immigrant status and stage at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.39). Factors that did show significant association with late-stage diagnosis were physician characteristics, whether a woman had previously undergone screening and had visited a gynecologist in the past 3 years. These results were echoed in the 2007-2012 cohort (immigrants v. long-term residents, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71-1.20). INTERPRETATION: Our results show that being an immigrant is not associated with late-stage diagnosis of cervical cancer in Ontario. Programs broadly aimed at immigrants may require a targeted approach to address higher-risk subgroups.
Authors: Joan Murphy; Erin B Kennedy; Sheila Dunn; C Meg McLachlin; Michael Fung Kee Fung; Danusia Gzik; Michael Shier; Lawrence Paszat Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2012-05
Authors: Christina Fitzmaurice; Daniel Dicker; Amanda Pain; Hannah Hamavid; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Michael F MacIntyre; Christine Allen; Gillian Hansen; Rachel Woodbrook; Charles Wolfe; Randah R Hamadeh; Ami Moore; Andrea Werdecker; Bradford D Gessner; Braden Te Ao; Brian McMahon; Chante Karimkhani; Chuanhua Yu; Graham S Cooke; David C Schwebel; David O Carpenter; David M Pereira; Denis Nash; Dhruv S Kazi; Diego De Leo; Dietrich Plass; Kingsley N Ukwaja; George D Thurston; Kim Yun Jin; Edgar P Simard; Edward Mills; Eun-Kee Park; Ferrán Catalá-López; Gabrielle deVeber; Carolyn Gotay; Gulfaraz Khan; H Dean Hosgood; Itamar S Santos; Janet L Leasher; Jasvinder Singh; James Leigh; Jost B Jonas; Jost Jonas; Juan Sanabria; Justin Beardsley; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Ken Takahashi; Richard C Franklin; Luca Ronfani; Marcella Montico; Luigi Naldi; Marcello Tonelli; Johanna Geleijnse; Max Petzold; Mark G Shrime; Mustafa Younis; Naohiro Yonemoto; Nicholas Breitborde; Paul Yip; Farshad Pourmalek; Paulo A Lotufo; Alireza Esteghamati; Graeme J Hankey; Raghib Ali; Raimundas Lunevicius; Reza Malekzadeh; Robert Dellavalle; Robert Weintraub; Robyn Lucas; Roderick Hay; David Rojas-Rueda; Ronny Westerman; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Sandra Nolte; Scott Patten; Scott Weichenthal; Semaw Ferede Abera; Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad; Ivy Shiue; Tim Driscoll; Tommi Vasankari; Ubai Alsharif; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Vasiliy V Vlassov; W S Marcenes; Wubegzier Mekonnen; Yohannes Adama Melaku; Yuichiro Yano; Al Artaman; Ismael Campos; Jennifer MacLachlan; Ulrich Mueller; Daniel Kim; Matias Trillini; Babak Eshrati; Hywel C Williams; Kenji Shibuya; Rakhi Dandona; Kinnari Murthy; Benjamin Cowie; Azmeraw T Amare; Carl Abelardo Antonio; Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela; Coen H van Gool; Francesco Violante; In-Hwan Oh; Kedede Deribe; Kjetil Soreide; Luke Knibbs; Maia Kereselidze; Mark Green; Rosario Cardenas; Nobhojit Roy; Taavi Tillmann; Taavi Tillman; Yongmei Li; Hans Krueger; Lorenzo Monasta; Subhojit Dey; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; G Anil Kumar; Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy; Lalit Dandona; Haidong Wang; Stein Emil Vollset; Ali Mokdad; Joshua A Salomon; Rafael Lozano; Theo Vos; Mohammad Forouzanfar; Alan Lopez; Christopher Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Israel De Alba; F Allan Hubbell; Juliet M McMullin; Jamie M Sweningson; Richard Saitz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jane R Montealegre; Renke Zhou; E Susan Amirian; Michele Follen; Michael E Scheurer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-08-11 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jonathan Simkin; Laurie Smith; Dirk van Niekerk; Hannah Caird; Tania Dearden; Kimberly van der Hoek; Nadine R Caron; Ryan R Woods; Stuart Peacock; Gina Ogilvie Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2021-04-22
Authors: A K Lofters; M A O'Brien; R Sutradhar; A D Pinto; N N Baxter; P Donnelly; R Elliott; R H Glazier; J Huizinga; R Kyle; D M Manca; M A Pietrusiak; L Rabeneck; B Riordan; P Selby; K Sivayoganathan; C Snider; N Sopcak; K Thorpe; J Tinmouth; B Wall; F Zuo; E Grunfeld; L Paszat Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 3.295